Bombay High Court

PARESH ANILKUMAR BHANDARI AND ORSversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided: 21 August 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The court granted anticipatory bail to Applicants 2 and 3 with stringent conditions.

Summary

The applicants, owners of a flat, were accused of cheating a buyer by selling a property that was already encumbered, leading to FIRs under IPC sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34. They filed an anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The first applicant, Paresh Anilkumar Bhandari, withdrew his application and surrendered, so the court considered the application only for Applicants 2 and 3, both senior‑citizen housewives. The prosecution opposed bail, while the defence argued that the two women had no role in the alleged fraud and no prior criminal record. The court examined the facts and, noting the applicants' cooperation and the seriousness of the charges, imposed stringent conditions including surety, regular police reporting, and non‑interference with witnesses. The court then granted anticipatory bail to Applicants 2 and 3 subject to those conditions. The order disposes of the anticipatory bail application accordingly.

Issues considered

Whether Applicants 2 and 3 are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 CrPC in view of the alleged offences under IPC sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34.
Whether the court should impose conditions on the grant of anticipatory bail to ensure the integrity of the investigation.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 34, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471

Subjects

anticipatory bail
Section 482 CrPC
property fraud
cheating
IPC 406
IPC 420
senior citizen
bail conditions

Judgment

908.ABA-2694.25.DOC

Digitally signed
by PRACHI
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
PRACHI PRANESH
PRANESH NANDIWADEKAR
NANDIWADEKAR
Date: 2026.08.21
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
18:07:25 +0530
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2694 OF 2025

Paresh Anilkumar Bhandari & Ors. … Applicants
V/s.
State of Maharashtra & Anr. …. Respondents
______________________
Ms. Purvi Shah (through VC) a/w Mr. Uday Shikare, for the
Applicants.
Ms. S. M. Yadav, APP, for the Respondent-State.

Ms. Ayodhya Patki i/by Mr. Vallabh Tokekar for Respondent No.2-
First Informant.
Mr. Somnath Bharat Kesare, Police Constable attached to Kondhwa
Police Station, Pune present.
______________________

CORAM : MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
DATED : 21 AUGUST 2026
P. C. :-

1. Heard Ms. Shah, learned counsel appearing for the

Applicants and Ms. Yadav, learned APP appearing for the

Respondent-State.

2. By this application filed under Section 482 of the Criminal

Procedure Code, 1973, the applicants are seeking pre-arrest bail in

connection with C.R. No.566 of 2025 registered with Kondhwa

Page 1
PPN
908.ABA-2694.25.DOC

Police Station, Pune for the offences punishable under Sections

406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. At the outset, it is required to be noted that on the last date,

learned counsel appearing for the Applicants after arguing the

matter for some time, made a statement that insofar as the

Applicant No.1- Paresh Anilkumar Bhandari (Accused No.1) is

concerned, he has instructions to withdraw the Anticipatory Bail

Application. Learned counsel appearing for the Applicants stated

that Accused No.1 will surrender on or before 20 August 2026 and

accordingly, the Applicant No.1 has surrendered yesterday.

4. In view of the above statement, it is clarified that by order

dated 17 August 2026, Anticipatory Bail Application has been

dismissed as withdrawn as far as Applicant No.1 is concerned.

Therefore, today the Anticipatory Bail Application is being

considered only for Applicant No.2-Mrs. Anita Anilkumar Bhandari

and Applicant No.3- Mrs. Vrushali Paresh Bhandari.

5. The prosecution case is set out in paragraph 3 of the order

dated 19 September 2025 passed by the learned Additional

Page 2
PPN
908.ABA-2694.25.DOC

Sessions Judge, Pune in Criminal Bail Application No.5128 of 2025

which reads as under :-

3. The applicants were the owners of one flat on 11 th floor of
an apartment named Mahavir Residency at Kondhwa. They sold
out the said flat to one Prathamesh Shinde by executing a
registered deed of assignment dtd. 31/10/2022. The said
Prathamesh Shinde, thereafter was interested in disposing off the
said flat. The complainant was interested in purchasing the same.
On 27/09/2023, the present applicants offered to sell the said flat
to the complainant, and executed a notarized agreement dtd.
27/09/2023 with the complainant to that effect. Therein, the
applicants promised the complainant to get the sale-deed
executed in his favour from the said Prathamesh Shinde. The
applicants also promised to clear off all the debts of financial
societies on the property. The details of payment of consideration
of Rs.77 lakhs was also stated in the said agreement. The
applicants received Rs.6 lakhs from the complainant as
commission for the said deal. Rs.4 lakhs out of the same were
received by the applicants in cash and the remaining Rs.2 lakhs by
cheque. Following the said deal, the said Prathamesh Shinde
executed a registered deed of assignment dtd. 25/10/2023 in
favour of complainant. However, it later turned out that the said
flat was already encumbered to one Cholamandalam Finance
company, from whom, the applicants had obtained finance by
offering the said flat on mortgage. An attachment notice of DRT
was pasted on the property, which brought these things to light.
The complainant realized that he had been cheated, and thus he
lodged police report, following which, FIR for offence u/sec. 406,
420 and other Sections of IPC was registered against the
applicants. In the above background, applicants have approached
this court for anticipatory bail.

6. It is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the

Applicants i.e. Applicant Nos.2 and 3 that they are ladies and they

Page 3
PPN
908.ABA-2694.25.DOC

have acted as per the instructions of Applicant No.1- Paresh

Anilkumar Bhandari. Learned counsel submits that Applicant Nos.2

and 3 are not involved in the crime. She submits that Applicant

Nos.2 and 3 have no other antecedents.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the

Respondent No.2 strongly opposes the application. However, she

submits that if the Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail then

stringent conditions be imposed.

8. The Applicant No.2 is a lady and senior citizen of 61 years

and Applicant No.3 is also a lady. Both the Applicant Nos. 2 and 3

are housewives.

9. Thus in the facts and circumstances, case is made out for

grant of anticipatory bail by imposing following stringent

conditions :-

ORDER

(a) In the event of arrest of the Applicant Nos. 2 and 3 in

connection with C.R. No.566 of 2025 registered with

the Kondhwa Police Station, Pune, the Applicants are

Page 4
PPN
908.ABA-2694.25.DOC

directed to be released on bail on their furnishing P.R.

Bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each with one or two

solvent sureties each in the like amount.

(b) Both the Applicants shall attend the concerned Police

Station on 31 August 2026, 1 September 2026 and 2

September 2026 between 11:00 a.m. to 02:00 p.m.

and thereafter, as and when called.

and residential address to the Investigating Officer

and shall keep the same updated, in case of any

change thereto.

(d) The Applicants shall not directly or indirectly make

any inducement, threat, or promise to any person

acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade

such a person from disclosing the facts to the Court or

to any Police personnel.

(e) The Applicants shall not tamper with the prosecution

evidence and shall not contact or influence the

Complainant or any witness in any manner.

(f) The Applicants shall not leave India without prior

Page 5
PPN
908.ABA-2694.25.DOC

permission of the Court.

(g) The Applicants shall cooperate with the Investigating

Officer and attend the concerned police station as and

when called by the Investigating Officer.

10. The observations made in this order are only for the purpose

for considering the anticipatory bail application.

11. Anticipatory Bail Application is disposed of accordingly.

[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]

Page 6
PPN

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…